Hubris of the Hyper-Imperion

by
Kim Petersen

Dissident Voice

May
10, 2003

Recent
articles in NY Times have adduced the image of the chest-puffing
hyper-imperion. As evinced by many polls, the neocons and prostrated media
duped the American public with the Hitlerian big lie. The Washington cabal
paraded a gaggle of neocons before the fawning media that faithfully reported ad
nauseum a litany of outrageous prevarications. The totality of the American
media surrender of its role as a monitor of power centers was reflected by the
fact that the mass public gullibility over Iraq is manifested exclusively in
the US.

The
filters of the Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model functioned exquisitely according
to prediction in the Persian Gulf Aggression. Although the Propaganda Model has
oodles of confirmatory cases, the role played by the media in the Persian Gulf
Aggression is akin to what the observed bending of light by gravitation was to
Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The ever-increasing consolidation of
the mainstream media in fewer hands and its interlinkage with government and other
power centers saw the anti-war movement effectively marginalized. The flak
machine beamed its military experts into living rooms across the country while
contrary views were brandished as being anti-American. There has been little
let up in the virtually unquestioned righteousness of the US-UK invasion of
Iraq.

The
US is making another pitch to have the UN sanctions on Iraq lifted so the US
can better care for its “baby,” as NY Times Columnist Milton Friedman mockingly
refers to the cradle of civilization. Washington has also let it be known that
they expect a unanimous vote.

The
hubris of the hyper-imperion seemingly knows no bounds.In the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom
the US vociferously attacked all non-obliging or dissenting voices. The UN was
castigated for it “irrelevance.” “Old Europe” was derided for its resistance.
France was especially singled out for blame over its “irresponsible” threat to
use its veto power in the UN Security Council (ignoring the overwhelming
preponderance of the US vetos in the UN Security Council). President Bush was
dismissive of the millions of anti-war demonstrators around the world who he
likened to a “focus group.”

Having
brushed off millions of people, former allies, and the UN, the only thing left
to do was compile a “coalition of the shilling,” which according to The
Washington Post had the strict requirement for each member nation to “allow its
name to be put on a list.” (1) Once getting the names on
the list then there was also the effort to keep as many as possible onboard;
Solomon Islands and Angola turned out to be not so willing. Next was the
extirpation of arch US fiend Saddam Hussein. It was supposed to be a cakewalk
but surprisingly, in the beginning, the recalcitrant Iraqis refused to conform
to US war game scenarios. With a few American greenbacks stuffed into the
pockets of certain Iraqi officers it wasn’t long before Iraqi troops vanished.
This paved the way for a nice photo-op of the tumbling of Saddam’s statue with
dozens of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi’s mercenaries, in a lull
from their looting, posing in the background as a mammoth horde of Iraqis.
Having exposed the charade the nearby Palestine Hotel’s media were punished
with a round of cannon fire.

Quickly
the oil infrastructure was secured and work began to get it up and pumping.
Never mind that the Iraqi hospitals were short of medicines but crammed with
casualties; never mind that the age old history of Mesopotamia was being
plundered; never mind that people hadn’t had potable water for a low time and
that the electric grid was fried. The US had its priorities decided early on.
As for the rest, ask US Minister of War Donald Rumsfeld. He’ll tell you: “Stuff
happens.”

It
was time to instill some order on the recalcitrant infant. Enter Zionist Jay
Garner to join with convicted crook Mr. Chalabi. Reappoint some Ba’ath
officials and policeman. Teach some proper behavior to the US “baby”: a few
rounds of ammunition pumped into Iraqi civilians with the gall to exercise
their Iraqi freedom by urging their liberators a quick trip home.

In
the meantime, the US came to a few nasty conclusions: reconstruction is going
to be expensive and the Iraqi debt is a burden to redevelopment. Quickly the US
sought to wipe out the Iraqi debt burden, in which Washington readily agreed to
write off its relatively small share. Others were not so eager. The plight of
other countries stifling under an oppressive debt load was neglected by the US.
Apparently this was a one-shot gesture of magnanimity. The humanitarian taps
were not yet flowing at the UN. It seems the UN wanted some say in the
occupation.

The
US insisted that this is a US operation albeit with some Roadmap biscuits
thrown in for the British lapdog to deal with that other “so-called
occupation.” The UN and NGOs have not taken kindly to submitting to US fiat.
Fortunately for the US, there are plenty of Christian fundamentalists like
Reverend Graham II to dish out bread and water with Bibles, as food for
thought, to the Iraqi Muslims.

Still
there are those nagging UN sanctions that the US-UK stubbornly maintained in
place despite the resignations of UN Humanitarian Coordinator Chiefs for Iraq
citing the genocidal impact of the sanctions. Erstwhile US Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright had already made clear that the US thinks the lives of
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children are “worth it.” Well the US has -
surprise - unilaterally decided they no longer apply and it will henceforth
ignore them. Yet in the same issue of the NY Times is a piece on Syrian and
Jordan having circumvented UN sanctions thereby earning the scorn of the US.
Well, at least Syria is earning some scorn. The article begins by mentioning
Syria and Jordan both twice and then mysteriously US client state Jordan
disappears followed by 18 more mentions of Syria and its duplicity. (2)

It
would make things easier for the US if everybody was helping out. The NY Times
reports that a draft resolution, supported by the US, UK, and Spain, is ready
calling for the end to the UN sanctions in Iraq. Heck, why stop there. The hubris
of the hyper-imperion knows no bounds. The resolution also calls for
approbation of US-UK control in Iraq for a minimum of one year and expects a
unanimous result. (3)

That
would seem to suggest that a Zionist and a convicted crook on the lamb would
rule Iraq for at least one year. Apparently democracy doesn’t grow overnight
except if you are white Kosovans without oil. US Secretary of State, currently
engaged in an internecine skirmish with Mr. Rumsfeld, made it clear in a CBC
interview that the US has “equity, some standing at the head of the class so to
speak, to make sure this [Iraqi democracy] goes in the right direction so that
our investment pays off.”

That
pay off is known by most sentient people to be the Iraqi people’s oil. To
garner the UN Security Council votes the UN has been offered the fig leaf of a
“concession, ” in the risible form of “representation on the advisory board of
the assistance fund and on the role of a new United Nations special coordinator
in Iraq.” (4)

In
essence what the invaders cum occupiers are asking for is a post hoc
legitimation of their violence. This is a madness borne of illusionary
thinking. It ignores the illegality of the aggression against Iraq. As such it
would be a blatant violation of the UN Charter that strives to prevent “the
scourge of war.” The UN would surely shred any credibility or relevance if it
bestowed a blessing upon the resolution. It would send out the message that if
you are mighty enough then Nuremberg Law be damned; aggression, even without
evidence of something approximating a justifiable casus belli is the
prerogative of the powerful.

Speaking
of casus belli just where are those weapons of mass destruction? Well
the US won’t be letting any UNMOVIC inspectors back in the near future, and the
US isn’t offering any control over the humanitarian situation that the US-UK
have managed to create with help form Mr. Hussein. Neither is the UN to be
involved in the establishment of institutions of democracy.

The
NY Times quotes Mr. Anonymous, a “senior administration official,” who claimed
the resolution was meant to win unanimous approval. Those countries which “lost
their way this spring, will accept the fact that, like it or not, the Iraqis
should not have to live under sanctions.” (5) The
realization came quite possibly a million or more lives and 12 years too late.

It
sends a lucid indication to get back behind the hyper-imperion. The NY Times
depicted the carrot-and-stick approach of Mr. Bush. The newly-constituted
democracies of “New Europe” were rewarded for having stood by the US. Mr.
Bushalso invited to the Whitehouse the
emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani to convey “the highest praise
from a president who has made clear the importance of loyalty.” Cynically, the
NY Times reported the administration chastisement of Turkey for adhering to the
democratically-expressed sentiments of its people. (6)

“Old
Europe” eluded censure since NATO expansion was also on the presidential
agenda. A move was made to downplay Russian fears over NATO enlargement.
Senator Richard J. Durbin noted curiously, in what must be a Freudian slip:
"The tiny Baltic states are no military challenge to Russia." (7) Neither was relatively tiny Iraq a challenge to the
hyper-imperion.

The
LA Times stated: “With its clear military supremacy, the Pentagon feels free to
flex its muscles with little regard to the diplomatic consequences of moving
into Russia's backyard or leaving the impression of snubbing Germany.” (8) The hubris of the hyper-imperion knows no bounds.